tv [untitled] February 6, 2011 10:30am-11:00am PST
increase, and that is two components. one component is not controllable by our department, and that is the annualization of any of the changes that have been made in agreements with the union or one-time payouts, or there are projected to be significant -- somewhere in the 15% or more, increase in the cost, so that is about 9.6% increase. you take that off the top, and the best is what we are proposing in terms of personnel. i would like to really focus on the top of this, and that is that when we exclude attrition
-- because attrition is going to be similar to what we have. the way it is calculated, it really is a political thing in terms of balancing the budget. at this point, it has not changed. i just want to talk about what is going on. in 2010-2011, with the original budget, we had 253 fte's -- 253.54. in the day, it is 255.95, and that difference is the annualization of positions that were added in between -- when you add a position, it is less than one fte for one year, and then it goes to one the following year. that difference is roughly --
i'm sorry. right, about 2.5. we are adding positions. i kind of quickly went over with the president the kind of distribution, but administrative services would be three positions. inspection services would be the fourth commission, and a permanent position with these six positions, so that brings it up to the budget would be 358- 359 -- i'm sorry, 368 -- >> 268. >> i'm blind. unfortunately, that is the
truth. it is 259 to round it, so that difference is 15.42, but that's 13.41 fte, real, new, fte's. the other increases in the budget -- significant increases in the budget -- are the projects, which increase 112%. this year, we had $2 million in the project. we are trying to be really cognizant of the possible slow growth in the economy. this year, we are posing $4.25
million, and the other portion that is large in our budget but not being subjected to increases, are the services of other departments. some of that is unavoidable. we are projecting some increases in the city attorney's office, various other larger dt -- some of the larger work orders. we do not have any information right now on what those are going to be because -- so i wanted to put a place holder in that because i did not want to have a situation where the budget gets in, and we are doing balancing and have to pull money out of some of the places or artificially increase some of our revenues. so we have gone through the increases in the salaries and fringes, so what is left is to talk about the project. i think -- whoops.
i think we talking in sufficient detail about the 1660 mission space requirements. the next is the server refresh. we have about 47 servers that are over five years old or approaching the 5-year-old mark. after five years, there is no longer any warranty or service provided. if those go down, we will have a significant amount of problems, and they will time out, the majority, in september, so we need to fund the server and replacement. we are working on plans of how we would do this in what kind of order, but we need to do this. it is critical.
we put in some money to augment what we had in cash and management and the czech/debit processing. we are working with the treasurer/tax collector. i'm thinking that we are not the only ones that have problems putting out our rfp's because they also have problems with hrc, but they have gotten it out and are working with the firm so we can get the economies of scale, but we put in a little extra money because we are going to need to have some different equipment so that things can be swiped as opposed to the old way that we were doing things, which is outdated by about 10 years. two version of records -- when we came to you last year, we said this would be at least a five-year process, and they were trying to continually fund it
every year. the poorman project tracking system replacement -- this will bring us up to the value that we committed to in the submission in 2008-2009 to the board of supervisors on the project. the planning department is also putting in money, but the requests were just due in on friday, and i'm not sure. i heard it was about $1 million, but i cannot confirm. that would shore them up also to their obligation. finally, the record management building plan -- that is an ongoing expense for duplication or copying of our plans, as required by the state, and that is funded primarily through the record retention fee.
we have increased this because we have to go out for an rfp and because we are having some interesting issues with the contractor that will require additional funding. so we put in some money for that. we just really do not know how that is going to tie out. so that is the high-level i wanted to give you. i will as much as possible respond to your questions. if i cannot give you an answer now, i will give it to you next week. commissioner murphy: commissioner walker. commissioner walker: thank you. thank you for the presentation and for speaking outside of the whole we are in. this is in my mind a positive
step towards restoring some positions and restoring service and actually getting to the level of work we are doing. some follow-up questions on some of the project. you were talking about the permitting and tracking system project and that the 600,000 brings us up -- is it to our total obligation or just the obligation to this point? >> it would bring us up to the -- since we do not have a contract right now, we do not have really an obligation to this point. this is our projected amount that we have that is about two years old, and it does not include a lot of hardware that we may or may not require. it may not be required because we are asking for a host of solutions. commissioner walker: my question
is -- how much have we allocated for this project, and how much have we spent, including this amount? >> we, being asked, our department -- we have $5.3 million -- we, being us. this will bring us up to $5.8 million. the project, it was estimated at $8.8 million, but that is more than just the professional services that were going out to the rfp. the people who, if they are listening, in terms of the rfp -- this number is much greater than what we think will come in just for personal services. when we went to the board of
supervisors, we wanted to give them an idea at that point in time what it would cost. commissioner walker: a couple more questions -- the server refresher recommendation -- we are making sure that that is going to be compatible with what we are doing as far as our permit and tracking project system update? >> yes. commissioner walker: all right. the cash management, check, debit processing is for the area, taking the money, correct, that president murphy expressed a concern about the slowness of. will this help with that? >> yes, it will. we take cash in on six floors of the building. what is happening -- because we are now taking in cash for the
development fee impact unit, our cash that we take in four of the department is growing unbelievably. what happens now is we have one -- how can i say this? one cashier or cash register for five people, and they have to wait in line to use that cash register. what we are proposing to do is to have them right on their computers so they do not have to get up and go to a cash register. they do not have to print out a permit from behind them, and it will speed up the actual processing of permits without even the to permit process of tracking. this will solve the problem we are addressing right now. the other part of it, and about $100,000 of this is going to be dedicated to this check, the bidding system where you run a check with, and it automatically debited from your account immediately instead of waiting and depositing, waiting 10 days,
and then we have to track it down. we are losing between $200,000 and $400,000 a year in non- sufficient checks, trying to chase them. with this fund, those checks will get larger, and we have more work to do in the background on them, so we wanted to make sure that we could get those checks immediately. it will be a benefit to the customer also. they will not have to run to try to get a cashier's check to pay certain fees. even on our code assessment costs, we require cashier's checks so that we report immediately the recession and abatement, so we have to take in a cashier's check. this will allow customers to pay with a personal check we automatically debit. if they do not have enough money, we just do not take the check. it will speed up our whole cash collection process. commissioner walker: all right.
i think that is it for now. commissioner hechanova: my question would be on if it is costing us in the thousands per year and if somebody has insufficient funds on their checks, would it be just canceling their permit and luring their application and lowering what can be done? >> we do that, but in some cases, it might be a roofer from out of town, and it is already on the building. they do not care whether we get our money or not sometimes. it is not so much the homeowner. it is the out of town contractors we are having a hard time chasing down because they might be out of business next week, and we are chasing thousands and thousands of dollars. >> the big issue is that we are not notified by the collector that the check has bounced until
about four or five days after the check is reported by s, so during that time, they could lease the project, and now, we have to revoke the permit, and we have to keep going. the treasury tax collectors spends a lot of time trying to go after and collect the money. in the last two days, i spent hours trying to get, like, $7,000 out of some not efficien. commissioner mar: i just had a question about the records management. is that kind of like a self-pay system? i have heard some contractors complain about the need to make too many copies. is that because of the requirement that we have to keep a lot of different copies
on file? tofile? >> what usually comes in is about to $1,000, what goes out is usually about $200,000. the cost would go up. right now, we are now proposing an increase in actual fee. that would be something that we could look at in terms of the over all the study that we could look at next year. commissioner clinch: i do not know if you are anticipating any uptick because of the america's cup? >> i can answer that.
the america's cup takes place on our property -- port property. if they require our services, we will be there for inspection services. we cannot estimate right now if they are going to need our services, but we will be there. if they do, we will adjust the budget accordingly. >> we have built into the budget $2,500 every year as needed, revenue from them, for as needed services, so we have some capacity already built in there. >> given that the america's cup has to be on track, it would be safe to assume that there would be services practically guaranteed that dbi will have to perform and conduct for the
america's cup. it would have to be a hedge that this is something that could at least be proposed, at least on a more practical scale and level. >> what we wanted to do was look at the trend that we have right now and project it forward. there may be some!nwd blips from that, but from all the discussions we have had, with the people who are dealing with the america's cup, it is not significant to increase what we are building the budget on. if it becomes, in the next couple of months, that we think it is going to be more, we can adjust with the mayor's office to adjust the estimates. we have had to do that in the
past. >> just so the commissioners know, we have built in the extra temporary salary if we need to bring on temporary people. projects such as the america's cup or something else may happen that we do not know about, so we have some contingency funds in the temporary salary line. but we then want to bring in permanent people for a two-year or three-year project. that is the way we are addressing the blips in the mou's. >> one of the things that we have done this last year, in regards to the blips, we had taken the joint powers agreement for the transbay terminal and we
divided it up neatly in five years -- equally by five years. there is always a delay in construction, or for instance, we build for the current year, 2.7 but we are projecting to get in 1.3. next year, we assume 2.7. so there is capacity as that revenue comes in, capacity, as you mentioned, to provide those levels of service to get things done in a timely basis. commissioner clinch: on the permit tracking system, is there anything we need to look at, given their refreshed, the dominant category will be
equipped and that needs to be the end of its shelf life. >> if we were not doing the permit tracking system, we would still need to do the refresh. we also need to make sure that what we think is needed for the tracking system, what ever we are investing in the refresh is consistent with what we need, but we are not increasing the number of servers right now to deal with the permit tracking system because, if we go for a different option and do not have all the servers with the city, with some other entity with whom it is hosted, we would have wasted our money.
so the answer is, they are not related, they are independent of each other. however, we want to be cognizant that what we're doing needs to be consistent so we are not starting over again. >> so the commissioners know, when we went out to bid two years ago with the permit tracking system, the equipment that we had was inconsistent with what we would need for a new system. we had built in extra money into the money that we sent to the board of supervisors for about $1.5 million to buy new servers at that time because we thought we would need them for the server refreshed hit. now the server refresh is here and the same service we are using for our current system we anticipate to use for the tracking system with the
additional position -- with the addition of a few servers. we are compatible now. our servers are so old right now they would not be consistent, we could not use them with the new permit tracking system. >> my question would be, functionality aside, if they are going to be incompatible -- if compatibility is the target goal, would it not be on technical accounting? we have so much volume and capacity, does it make sense to have them built in capacity in the servers? >> we are going to run the two systems together parallel for a while. we will need a new system to take the place when we take our old system down. those servers we are taking from the old system will be used for the record management's system.
so we are intending to use every piece of equipment we have with the idea of going for that they will be compatible with any kind of technology that we are going forward with. so the server refresh is just to get our existing servers, record management servers, permit tracking servers that we have right now up to current technology levels that will be able to meet the technology that we are requesting to do both from the permit tracking system and records management system. so they will be compatible but they will not be -- they will be running in parallel for the two-year implementation stage. so we will need some additional servers running separately from the ones that are running our current system. >> has that been consistent with where the new system will be brought in, consistent with what had originally been set up?
>> if i understand your question, one of the things that we are requiring from the bidders of the permit tracking system, there was to know -- they want to know where software and hardware is needed for their proposal. those are in march, march 2. we will have an idea at that point in time exactly what we are looking at and what people will propose. kid is probably already an idea of what it is people will need because there are so many things in the market that we know. the refreshed, when we buy the
new servers, they need to be compatible with anything we are going to need to buy for the permit tracking system. the only day we are not doing is we are not buying more computers than we need for the servers than we need now. we are not stacking up and buying extra inventory because we know in two years we are going to have the permit tracking system on line. but we are making sure that what we have can be used, would be compatible with what ever we buy, whatever we need for the permit tracking system. i am not sure if i am asked -- answering your question. >> well, we need a system that
is going to meet our immediate needs, as well as what is coming in the future. in light of that, but we will need all sell -- what we will need also, we have a system that can accommodate not only our current needs, but on the permit tracking side, both will grow exponentially with what is currently being proposed under cost with rfp. >> the rfp is only the professional services for the contract, for the system. it does not include the hardware. what hardware we would buy would be similar to the ones that we are buying for the server refresh. we would not look at their relationship -- we would make sure to make sure that they
match up. i do not want us to spend more money than we need for existing needs, but thinking about the future, two years from now, we do not know what we need. so we need to design the refresh, look at what kinds -- we are going to do with the various vendors. they are going to suggest what we need for this refresh and how we would design the server room. we know that we need more room for additional servers. we will know at that time what kinds of things, the range of
things that we would need for the off-the-shelf system, and we would put that together to make sure that we are consistent and moving along, and building -- knowing then current and future needs. >> if the permit tracking system is to be awarded this year, within that installation time period, will that be inclusive also of the training necessary for what will have to be this new system for staff to use? and is that in the budget? >> the training is in the budget. the permit tracking system, rfp included a requirement for two